Trump’s Iran Gambit: Disengagement Ought to Be the Goal

President Trump’s brash decision to authorize strikes against three Iranian nuclear sites has the potential to draw us into a broader regional conflict we can ill afford. Full-scale conflict, or war, with Iran is now in the cards. As opposed to the limited strikes carried out by Israel, American involvement adds a different dimension to the conflict and risks escalation. 

The US needs to get out of the Middle East. President Trump echoed such sentiment on his campaign trail. The decision to directly involve the US military in strikes against a foreign adversary not only betrays this campaign promise, but also risks drawing us further into a quagmire we’ve spent the last twenty years trying to pick up the pieces of.

America’s position in the Middle East has had an untold material and human cost. Our presence in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, while just and noble, has shown itself to not be sustainable, from a geopolitical and material standpoint. 

The “mission,” so to speak, in regards to our involvement in the Middle East– which started under Bush– was thus: stabilize democracy in the region. We’ve largely achieved that goal, albeit with an immense cost to civilians and our troops alike. Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds in Syria are also key failures of our “mission”. But on the whole, US involvement in Syria and Iraq has stabilized those nations, and stabilized the region as a whole.

The question, then, is why do we maintain such a large presence in the Middle East, when it comes at such a high cost?  The current Israeli government provides an answer.

Israel is the linchpin of US strategy in the Middle East. A robust, strong Israel allows us to oppose Iran while not having a large force in the region. In essence, it allows us to achieve our objectives not alone, but in cooperation, which puts less strain on our resources. Under normal circumstances, it is what allows us to limit our presence in the Middle East. However, in recent days, Israel has begun to look like a less reliable partner for advancing American interests. 

The Israel of today, of Benjamin Netanyahu, is not the liberal Zionist project of Golda Meir; it’s a nationalistic rogue state. Netanyahu’s war in Gaza has lurched on far beyond when it should have; Hamas was destroyed months ago, meaning a second October Seventh could never happen. Now it seems Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza, starving its people, and killing more and more civilians, seemingly with no end in sight. And this is being conducted with full US backing, which poses an immense and bottomless strain on our resources. US policy should not be in support of this, and to that end, Trump has shown some signs of progress. Trump is willing to play hardball with Netanyahu. The question, then, is whether he will keep that up, or continue to oscillate towards the ride or die Israel fanaticism of some in the GOP. 

Then it becomes clear that one of the reasons we maintain such a large Middle Eastern Force is to placate a rogue and directionless ally. Our deep involvement in the region through Netanyahu should be a point we seek to pivot from in the future.

 Moreover, Trump’s strikes threaten to tenfold our involvement.

Let me be clear: Iran having nuclear weapons is an absolute no-go.  The regime of the Mullahs is one thats ideology threatens long term peace in the Middle East. To that end, we should be using tools of preventive diplomacy and limited involvement;  we should not be drawing ourselves directly into the conflict.  Our policy in the Middle East can not be an endless sacrifice of blood and treasure like our bankrolling of Israel.

War with Iran would be exactly that. If Iran chooses war in response to these direct attacks from the US (Pearl Harbor, eh!), which they most certainly can, all of our troops across the region would be at risk. The Strait of Hormuz could be shut down, crippling global oil supplies. And this doesn’t even account for boots on the ground– our military wargaming indicates that such an operation would be a costly, fifteen-year failure.

All of this is for the nominal purpose of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But this blood is not an inevitability. The gun is not our only tool to prevent the Iranian nuclear program from developing, as we have been able to peacefully stop it in the past.

The Trump administration’s ongoing negotiations, and before that, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) under the Obama administration, were both showing success in preventing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Beyond that, the Israeli strikes were also showing success in ceasing Iran’s nuclear capability. However, the choice for the US to get directly involved remains a risky gambit.

Should Iran choose to retaliate with all the tools at its disposal, the US will inevitably be dragged into another large confrontation in the Middle East with no end in sight. This will further drain our resources and leave us ensnared in a conflict that we geopolitically cannot afford.

As far as US foreign policy priorities are concerned, the primary bulk of our resources should be in the West, helping Ukraine win its war against Russia, and in the East, countering Chinese expansion. We shouldn’t be bogged down in the desert when we could have taken a different path to achieve our goals.

So then within Trump’s strikes lies a gambit: if the attacks weakened Iran to the point where they can not effectively retaliate (which is impossible to know at this point), then they will have been a great success– neutralizing our primary geopolitical foe in the Middle East. This could potentially mark the beginning of the slow decay of the Iranian state, ultimately ending with Regime Change and permanently quashing the Islamic government. 

If they have not? Then the cost will be immense. 

Mr. Trump is making a gambit, one with enormous risk. He has thrown all our chips onto the poker table, with the house on the line. 

I’m holding my breath.